Before us for review is the Decision^[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05286 dated 8 January 2013 which affirmed with modification the Judgment^[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 12, in Criminal Case No. 1014-M-2005 finding appellants Jonel Vargas y Ramos (Jonel) and Jerienald Villamero y Esman (Jerienald) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.

The Information filed on 7 April 2005 charged appellants with murder committed as follow:

That on or about the 4th day of September 2004, in San Jose del Monte City, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with unknown caliber guns, and with intent to kill one Jojo F. Magbanua, with evident premeditation, treachery and abuse of superior strength, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot with the said firearms, they were then provided, the said Jojo F. Magbanua, hitting him on his head, thereby inflicting upon him mortal wound which directly caused his death.^[3]

Appellants entered a "not guilty" plea. Trial proceeded.

The prosecution's lone eyewitness, Adolfo Lagac (Adolfo), narrated that on 4 September 2004, at around 7:00 p.m., he was inside a grocery store in Barangay Muzon, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan when he heard a gunshot which preceded the arrival of Jojo Magbanua (Jojo), who was bloodied and running. Immediately thereafter, two (2) armed men, whom Adolfo identified as appellants Jonel and Jerienald, entered the grocery store. They approached Jojo who, then, was already sprawled on the ground. Adolfo saw Jonel shoot Jojo while Jerienald merely stood beside Jonel. After the shooting, appellants hurriedly left the store.^[4]

The victim's father, Elias Magbanua (Elias) testified on the expenses he incurred as a result of the death of his son, Jojo. Elias however failed to present the receipts in court.

In his defense, Jonel claimed that he was watching television inside his house in Pabahay 2000 in San Jose del Monte City on 4 September 2004 between 4:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m, the time of the supposed shooting incident. Jonel denied he knew and killed Jojo.^[5] Jonel also denied knowing the eyewitness, Adolfo.^[6]

Jerienald admitted that he and Jonel grew up together in Quezon City. He narrated that he was at home doing his chemistry project on 4 September 2004 when he heard from a neighbor that someone was killed in the area near the church. Worried for his cousins who were attending a service in said church, Jerienald went to the scene of the crime.^[7] He did not find his cousins. He was arrested a year later or on 10 September 2005 by three aides upon identification by Jonel's brother.^[8]

Jerienald's mother corroborated his statement that he was at home studying on the date of the incident.^[9]

On 30 June 2011, the RTC rendered judgment finding appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder. The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused JONEL VARGAS y RAMOS and JERIENALD VILLAMERO y ESMAN, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, and hereby sentences them to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay the heirs of the victim Jojo Magbanua, the sum of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and costs.

In so far as the other accused ARMANDO CADANO @Mando; JOJO ENORME @ Jojo; and RUTHER GARCIA @ Benjie/Loloy are concerned, let an ALIAS WARRANT be issued against them. In the meantime, the records of this case [are] hereby sent to the archives to be revived upon the arrest of the other accused.^[10]

The RTC relied on the lone eyewitness' positive identification of appellants as the perpetrators of the crime over appellants' defense of denial and alibi.

Appellant seasonably filed a Notice of Appeal^[11] before the Court of Appeals. On 8 January 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the RTC with modification on the amount of damages awarded, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 30 June 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial Region, Branch 12, City of Malo1os, Bulacan in Criminal Case No. 1014-M-2005, finding accused-appellants Jonel Vargas y Ramos and Jerienald Villamero y Esman guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing accused-appellants to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordering them to pay to the heirs of the victim Jojo Francisco Magbanua the sum of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php50,000.00 as moral damages, and Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused-appellants are further ordered to pay to the heirs of the victim Php25,000.00 as temperate damages, with interest of six percent (6%) per annum on all damages, from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.^[12]

Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal.^[13] On 25 September 2013, we issued a Resolution requiring the parties to file their supplemental briefs, if they so desire.^[14] Both parties manifested that they will adopt the same arguments in their separate briefs filed before the Court of Appeals.^[15]

Appellants highlight the inconsistencies in the statements given by the lone prosecution witness in his sworn statement and in his testimony in open court relative to the identification of the perpetrators. Appellants assert that due to said inconsistencies, their guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Appellants also question the trial court's finding of treachery to qualify the crime to murder. Appellants aver that the eyewitness did not witness the whole incident, thus treachery cannot be presumed.

We agree with appellants.

In every criminal case, the task of the prosecution is always two-fold, that is, (1) to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime charged; and (2) to establish with the same quantum of proof the identity of the person or persons responsible therefor, because, even if the commission of the crime is a given, there can be no conviction without the identity of the malefactor being likewise clearly ascertained.^[16]

In his sworn statement, Adolfo named six (6) individuals who apparently chased the victim into the grocery store, namely: Jonel Vargas, alyas Taroy, alyas Mando, alyas Jojo, alyas Jamin and alyas Benjie, and he could not identify who shot the victim. He reasoned that he could not remember because he was too scared for his life.^[17] Two years later and testifying before the court, Adolfo categorically identified appellants as the only two assailants who chased Adolfo into the grocery store and further pointed to Jonel as the one who shot him.

Generally, whenever there is inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight considering that affidavits taken ex parte are inferior to testimony in court, the former being almost invariably incomplete and oftentimes inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestions and sometimes from want of suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which the witness may be unable to recall the connected circumstances necessary for his accurate recollection of the subject.^[18]

The circumstances obtaining in this case militate against the application of the aforecited principle. The inconsistency between the two statements relate to the identification of the assailants. Adolfo named six (6) assailants in his sworn statement which was taken twelve (12) days after the shooting incident, thus:

6. T -	:	Kilala mo ba ang mga taong humabol at bumaril kay Jojo Magbanua?
S -	:	Kilala ko lang po sila sa mukha at sa kanilang mga alyas o palayaw.
7. T -	:	Kung kilala mo sila sa kanilang palayaw, ano-ano ang kanilang palayaw?
S -	:	Sina Jonel Vargas, Alyas Taroy, Alyas Mando, Alyas Jojo, Alyas Jamin at si Alyas Benjie po.[19] (Emphasis supplied)

Such categorical identification could not be taken as utterances made out of fear or panic. Adolfo gave out names which match the names of actual people living in Barangay Muzon. Furthermore, when pressed by the police officer on who shot the victim, Adolfo replied that he could not remember, thus:

8. T -	:	Sa mga taong sinabi mo, sino naman ang bumaril kay Jojo?
S -	:	Hindi ko na po matandaan sa kanila.
9. T -	:	Sinabi mong nakita mo nuong nabaril si Jojo, bakit hindi mo matandaan kung sino sa kanila ang bumaril?
S -	:	Dahil po sa natakot ako at nagmadali narin akong umalis.[20]

And then two years later, he crossed out from his recollection the other accused that were still at large and zeroed in on appellants as the only two assailants. Adolfo testified:

DIRECT-EXAMINATION BY FISCAL CARAIG:
Q:	Tell us, Mr. Witness, if you can recall, where were you on September 4, 2004, at about 7:00 in the evening?
A:	I was inside a store, a semi-grocery, sir.
Q:	Where is that located?
A:	At Phase 3, Pabahay 2000, sir.
Q:	Barangay what?
A:	Brgy. Muzon, San Jose del Monte City.
Q:	While you were in that place, do you know of any unusual incident that took place?
A:	Yes, sir.
Q:	Tell us what was that?
A:	I heard a gunshot from the nearby place and after about more than a minute, I saw the son of Elias Magbanua running towards the store where I was then buying cigarettes and I noticed that he had bloodstains on his back.
Q:	Was that person you saw able to enter the grocery?
A:	Yes, sir.
Q:	When he was able to enter the grocery, what did you saw (sic) next?
A:	I saw blood on his back before he fell on tjle ground face up.
Q:	And that is while he was already inside the grocery?
A:	Yes, sir.
Q:	On that point and time, how far were you from him?
INTERPRETER:
	Witness pointing to the chair.
WITNESS:
A:	Three (3) meters, sir.
FISCAL:
Q:	And as you said that was 7:00 in the evening. Why were you able to see him from that distance away from you?
A:	Because the grocery was illuminated.
Q:	And immediately before that person wliom you saw running with bloodstains on his back, what other things did you see?
A:	I saw the persons chasing this son of Elias and I noticed that they had guns with them.
Q:	How many persons were chasing that person?
A:	I only saw two (2) men with firearm who entered the grocery store.
Q:	Were those persons the same persons you said chasing the son of Elias?
A:	Yes, sir.
Q:	Were they both armed with guns?
A:	Yes, sir.
Q:	Describe to us what kind of guns they were carrying at that time?
A:	Both appeared to be armed with revolvers.
Q:	You said that these two (2) persons entered the grocery. Were they able to go near to the son of Elias?
A:	Yes, sir, they approached the son of Elias when he was already on the ground.[21] (Emphasis supplied)

Adolfo would adamantly repeat that he only saw two armed men running after the victim. And he even unceremoniously added that, he saw Jon.el shoot the victim, viz:

Q:	And when they were able to approach the son of Elias, what did you notice, if any, with respect to the son of Elias?
A:	I noticed the son of Elias who was a young man raised his hands saying. "Hindi po ako ang kalaban ninyo."
Q:	And after uttering those words, what happened next?
A:	One of the two (2) armed men shot him instead.
Q:	Did you see what part of the body of the son of Elias was hit?
A:	He was hit on the left side of his head.
Q:	And after the son of Elias was hit at his left forehead, what happened to him?
A:	When he was hit on the head, the impact made him turned over with the empty cartoon boxes inside the grocery.
Q:	Now, tell us what was the position of the son of Elias immediately before he was shot on the head?
A:	He was lying on the ground with his face tip and with his hands raised.
Q:	Now you said that when he was shot, he also turned over and even rolled with empty cartoon boxes, what happened to him?
A:	He just laid there still motionless.
Q:	Where is he now?
A:	He was already buried, sir.
Q:	Why?
A:	Because he died, sir.
Q:	Now, you said the two (2) men you saw were chasing the son of Elias and one of them shot him. If you will see those two (2) persons again, will you able to identify them?
A:	Yes, sir.
Q:	Would you please look around and point to us if they are inside the courtroom.
COURT:
	Witness pointed to accused Jonel Vargas and Jerienald Villamiro inside the courtroom.
COURT: (to the accused)
Q:	Ano ang apelyido mo sa ina, Jonel Vargas?
A:	Ramos po.
Q:	Ikaw naman, Jerienald?
A:	Esman po.
FISCAL:
	With the information given by the accused with respect to their maternal names, Your Honor, please, may we request that amendment be made accordingly with respect to their names.
COURT:
	Go ahead.
FISCAL:
Q:	When you saw them able to get near the son of Elias and one of them shot the son of Elias, how far were they from the son of Elias?
A:	About one (1) adult arm's length.
Q:	Who was that person who shot the son of Elias?
COURT:
	Witness pointing to Jonel Vargas inside the courtroom.
FISCAL:
Q:	Immediately before Jonel shot the son of Elias, what was his companion doing, this Jerienald?
A:	He was just standing besides Jonel.
Q:	Immediately before Jonel shot the son of Elias, did you hear any words uttered by these two (2) persons?
A:	None, sir.
Q:	After the son of Elias was shot, what did these two (2) persons do?
A:	They just went out of the grocery store.
Q:	Were ther in a hurry at that time?
A:	Yes, sir.[22] (Emphasis supplied)

Twelve days after the shooting of the victim, the lone eyewitness mentioned details of what he saw: six people running after the victim. Nothing in such detail referred to the identity of the culprit. The lone witness clearly said he could not remember who shot the victim. Two years thereafter, he came with the testimony that only two not six chased the deceased. And he saw the person who shot the victim.

In People v. Rodrigo,^[23] the Court had the occasion to instruct that great care should be taken in considering the identification of the accused especially, when this identification is made by a sole witness and the judgment in the case totally depends on the reliability of the identification.

In his Sworn Statement, Adolfo mentioned six (6)  individuals involved in the crime but that he could not remember who shot the victim. In his testimony however, the number of participants were reduced to two, who conveniently were the only two individuals arn!sted in connection with the crime. Adolfo also remembered seeing Jonel shoot the victim.

We held in People v. Flores^[24] that when serious and inexplicable discrepancies are present between a previously executed sworn statement of a witness and her testimonial declarations with respect to one's participation in a serious imputation such as murder, there is raised a grave doubt on the veracity of the witness' account. There is no other evidence in this case aside from the testimony of the lone eyewitness which directly implicates appellants to the crime. The inconsistent statements could not be dismissed as inconsequential because the inconsistency goes into the very identification of the assailants, which is a crucial aspect in sustaining a conviction.

In People v. Tumambing,^[25] we declared that:

A successful prosecution of a criminal action largely depends on proof of two things: the identification of the author of the crime and his actual commission of the same. An ample ,proof that a crime has been committed has no use if the prosecution is unable to convincingly prove the offender's identity. The constitutional presumption of innocence that an accused enjoys is not demolished by an identification that is full of uncertainties.^[26]

The deficiency in the proof submitted by the prosecution cannot be ignored. A slight doubt created in the identity of the perpetrators of the crime should be resolved in favor of the accused.^[27]

As succinctly put by the Court in People v. Fernandez:^[28]

It is better to liberate a guilty man than to unjustly keep in prison one whose guilt has not been proved by the required quantum of evidence. Hence, despite the Court's support of ardent crusaders waging all-out war against felons on the loose, when the People's evidence fails to prove indubitably the accused's authorship of the crime of which they stand accused, it is the Court's duty - and the accused's right - to proclaim their innocence. Acquittal, therefore, is in order.^[29]

Although the acquittal of appellants renders any further question on the elements of the crime moot, we deem it worthwhile to discuss why treachery should not be appreciated in this case had appellants been proven to have killed the victim.

Appellants were correct in asserting that Adolfo did not witness the onset of the commotion. For treachery to be considered, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack. Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, the perpetration of an attack with treachery cannot be presumed.^[30] Adolfo merely saw the victim being chased by two armed men. He could not describe how the aggression began and who started it.

For failure of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellants were the perpetrators of the crime, we are constrained to rule on the latters' acquittal.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 8 January 2013 of the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction of appellants Jonel Vargas y Ramos and Jerienald Villamero y Esman by the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 12, for murder is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Appellants are hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged against them and ordered immediately RELEASED from custody, unless they are being held for some other lawful cause.

The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to forthwith implement this decision and to INFORM this Court, within five (5) days from receipt hereof, of the date when appellants were actually released from confinement.

SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Brion,^* Peralta, and Reyes, JJ., concur.

---

^* Additional Member per Raffle dated 25 January 2016.

^[1] Rollo, pp. 2-22; Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo with Associate Justices Frnnchito N. Diamante and Melchor Quirino C. Sadang concurring.

^[2] Records, pp. 159-174; Presided by Judge Virgilita Bautista-Castillo.

^[3] Id. at 2.

^[4] TSN, 10 February 2006, pp. 3-7.

^[5] TSN, 30 May 2008, pp. 2-6.

^[6] TSN, 8 August 2008, p. 3.

^[7] TSN, 9 June 2009, pp. 3-5.

^[8] TSN, 3 November 2009, p. 13.

^[9] TSN, 7 October 2010, pp. 3-4.

^[10] Records, p. 174.

^[11] CA rollo, p. 66.

^[12] Rollo, p. 21.

^[13] Id. pp. 23-25.

^[14] Id. pp. 29-30.

^[15] Id. at 31-33 and 37-39.

^[16] People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 192250, 11 July 2012.

^[17] Records, p. 6.

^[18] Gonzales v. People, 544 Phil. 409, 417-418 (2007).

^[19] Records, p. 6.

^[20] Id.

^[21] TSN, 10 February 2006, pp. 3-5.

^[22] Id. at 5-7.

^[23] 586 Phil. 515, 528 (2008).

^[24] 377 Phil. 1009, 1014 (1999).

^[25] 659 Phil. 544 (2011).

^[26] Id. at 547.

^[27] People v. De la Cruz, 666 Phil. 593, 619 (2011) citing People v. Ong, 568 Phil. 114, 131 (2008).

^[28] 434 Phil. 435 (2002).

^[29] Id. at 455 as cited in People v. De Guzman, 690 Phil. 701, 717 (2012).

^[30] People v. Watamama, G.R. No. 188710, 2 June 2014, 724 SCRA 331, 340.